I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc.

et al

Doc. 981

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK DIVISION

I/P ENGINE, INC.,

Plaintiff, v.

AOL, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512

PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE’S MOTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM TO SHORTEN DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO I/P ENGINE’S MOTION FOR DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE UNDER RULE 37 FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AUGUST 13, 2013 ORDER

Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) moves pursuant to Local Rule 7(F)(1) and offers this memorandum in support of its motion to shorten Defendants’ time to respond to I/P Engine Inc.’s Motion for Defendants To Show Cause Under Rule 37 For Noncompliance with August 13, 2013 Order (“Motion to Show Cause”). I/P Engine sets forth its grounds as follows. On August 13, 2013, this Court ordered Defendants to produce any documents relevant for determining whether “New AdWords” is no more than a colorable variation of the adjudicated infringing system. As I/P Engine’s Motion to Show Cause recites, the Defendants did not comply fully with this order by producing all relevant documents. I/P Engine’s and Defendants’ counsel conducted a meet and confer on August 27, 2013. The Defendants have still not fully complied with this Court’s order. Each day that the Defendants fail to produce the documents ordered by this Court, I/P Engine suffers prejudice. As a consequence, I/P Engine has filed the Motion to Show Cause to alleviate this prejudice. Local Rule 7(F)(1) provides that a party has eleven (11) days to respond to a motion (which is increased by three (3) days by service by electronic means), “unless otherwise directed

Dockets.Justia.com

Because of Defendants’ failure to comply with the Court’s order. Brothers Dawn Rudenko Albert Charles J.
by the Court. Schultz (Virginia Bar No. NW Washington. VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 623-3000 Facsimile: (757) 623-5735 Jeffrey K.C. there is not enough time for I/P Engine to prepare its expert reports. 19222) Frank C. Monterio. Sherwood (Virginia Bar No. 2013 By: /s/ Jeffrey K. 47423) CRENSHAW. will significantly prejudice I/P Engine. Further. 2013. Sherwood Donald C. Dated: August 29. Jr. DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 420-2200 Facsimile: (202) 420-2201 Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine. 30531) W. In an effort to expedite resolution of this issue. Jr. I/P Engine will waive its right to reply to Defendants’ response and requests an oral hearing before this Court on the Motion to Show Cause on September 5 or 6 or at another time convenient for this Court. if the Motion to Show Cause is granted.” Good cause exists for this Court to direct a shorter time. WARE & MARTIN P. Because I/P Engine must obtain the information the Court ordered to be produced and conduct depositions in sufficient time to permit the completion of expert witness reports by September 25.
2
. 2013. Cimino. Kenneth W. I/P Engine respectfully requests this Court to require Defendants to respond to I/P Engine’s Motion to Show Cause on or before September 4. the normal response time of 11 days and the imposition of additional time for compliance with the Court’s order. 150 West Main Street Norfolk. Ryan Snow (Virginia Bar No.L. Jonathan Falkler DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 1825 Eye Street. Inc.